WI: Colonial New Zealand Breakup

WI The capital city of New Zealand was never moved from Auckland to Wellington in the 1850-60's and the gold-rich, more populated South Island broke away to form a separate colony.
What implications would this have for the modern day NZ islands/countries?
Would we see a Maori majority in the North Island with a European majority in the South?
Would they be separate countries when the British Empire falls in the 20th century?
Would the NZ colonies have joined Australia(/Australasia)?
Or would they have eventually united back together to end up forming a similar NZ to today?
 
There was plans for the two big islands to be seperate countries (some still wish for this to be).

Having said that, though.

The South would be more Scottish and Presbyterian while the North would be more English and Anglican (there would, like in real life, be some crossover, the first settlers in Christchurch being English and Anglican, for example).

I don't think you'd see a Maori majority in the North. They were going through a lot of warfare during this time (amongst themselves and against the British) and newly introduced disease whittled down their numbers a bit. Perhaps the North would be harsher in dealing with the Natives? Anyone not liking the government treatment of the Maori moving to the South? Perhaps the South would be more 'liberal' in that respects, at least on the surface.

What would happen to the gentry? Few are aware that there was quite a budding landed gentry in New Zealand for quite a number of decades, how would the change in government affect them? (most sold up their properties and left due to the increasing socialist tendancies in the late 1800s/early1900s, apparently).

Depending on whether a seperate South Island was as Scottish as we're lead to believe the real South is, would the 'Scottish South' instigate a policy of attracting primarily Scottish emigrants?
 
Good question.

Let's look at the relevant facts:

Capital officially changed in 1865.

Provinces: The abolition of the provinces was legislated in 1875, passed in 1876 after an election on the matter. Auckland and Otago governments were leading the provincial side.

New provinces initially could be hived off the originals reasonably easily until 1865 when the law was changed requiring parliament's approval.

Demographics: European population passed Maori population by 1860. I don't recall quite what the population was mid 1860s, but I suspect Maori population had declined to about 50K and European population would be around 200k.

Regarding the Scottish South, well, this is both true and not. The key point is that Scottish migrants formed a much higher proportion of migrants to Southland, Otago and South Canterbury than their share of UK population. Something like a third of migrants to NZ pre 1870 were Scottish. After 1870 IIRC in the areas listed above, Scottish immigrants formed 20 to 30% of migrants. In the wider NZ European population, about 10%. Which is still higher than their UK population share.

Then there are the Northern Ireland Protestant migrants, who were an allied population and quickly became part of the wider group.

Finances: The central government and many of the smaller provinces were in dire financial situation - massive loans that could not be serviced.

War: The financial situation was in part due to infrastructure, but also the land wars rumbling on up north.
 
So what happens then?

I would think it wouldn't take much to keep NZ as it was pre early 1870s, in terms of structure. We keep a national parliament but the provinces retain their position, which in effect keeps the centre weak. IF this happens, we in effect retain a strong Otago, Canterbury, Wellington and Auckland, with weak smaller provinces in their orbit.

In this scenario, Otago keeps more of its wealth and invests it in improvements, including migrants. It probably remains more Scottish than it otherwise would, but not a lot more. Southland becomes a satellite of Otago (maybe merges again as per OTL?)and due to be economically weak, perhaps is a bit more Scottish (less incentive for other migrants to come without massive central government funded works/migration?). Across the South Island movement grows for an island wide government as it is quite clear that something needs to be done regarding the current structure. This dovetails into the federation discussions with the Australian colonies. Vogel and Stout, who otherwise became ardent centralisers, remain in Otago and instead become South Island unification supporters (they both flirted with this OTL).

The North Island is more problematic. On one hand, the demographic battle was won by settlers by 1865. On the other hand, Maori still controlled vast areas of their traditional lands and had men under arms. I think that the Maori are still going to lose here but it may be slower and they may retain more lands. The problem for Maori is that they own lots of land everyone else wants, including people in the South Island, the Australian colonies and the UK. There will continue to be a lot of pressure. The North Island is also more hospitable. There is a reason why more Maori lived there afterall. There will be a constant pressure on them, either through war, or legal land alienation.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about the rest of it but on the Gentry topic as a child of rural England whose one exposure to New Zealand was on a Rugby tour and who spent two days on a 8000 acre sheep station the similarities were numerous especially in the South Island (King's in Auckland was full of Lawyers sons).
Also I will admit you Kiwi's were better at Rugby, but we drank you under the table.
 
Ok so say the two main islands did split, which would be stronger, richer, more influential? Would they be friends or have strained tensions? Could their relationship be similar to the NZ-Australian relation of OTL? And most importantly, what would we call these two countries? Would they be New Zealand (in the North) and New Munster (in the south)? Or can we think of other names?
 
There was plans for the two big islands to be seperate countries (some still wish for this to be).

Having said that, though.

The South would be more Scottish and Presbyterian while the North would be more English and Anglican (there would, like in real life, be some crossover, the first settlers in Christchurch being English and Anglican, for example).

I don't think you'd see a Maori majority in the North. They were going through a lot of warfare during this time (amongst themselves and against the British) and newly introduced disease whittled down their numbers a bit. Perhaps the North would be harsher in dealing with the Natives? Anyone not liking the government treatment of the Maori moving to the South? Perhaps the South would be more 'liberal' in that respects, at least on the surface.

What would happen to the gentry? Few are aware that there was quite a budding landed gentry in New Zealand for quite a number of decades, how would the change in government affect them? (most sold up their properties and left due to the increasing socialist tendancies in the late 1800s/early1900s, apparently).

Depending on whether a seperate South Island was as Scottish as we're lead to believe the real South is, would the 'Scottish South' instigate a policy of attracting primarily Scottish emigrants?

Why would the South be liberal towards Maori? There were barely any of them there for a start, with only only one tribe major situated at Northern tip of the South Island (though at the time of European arrival there were expeditions to the South but by and Large Maori were in the North). The majority of New Zealand Maori lived in the North of the North Island and that probably won't change considering all the tribal affiliation and connections that Maori culture and spiritualism has to their land, they will be a powerful minority in the North and probably have less representation in the South.

Ok so say the two main islands did split, which would be stronger, richer, more influential? Would they be friends or have strained tensions? Could their relationship be similar to the NZ-Australian relation of OTL? And most importantly, what would we call these two countries? Would they be New Zealand (in the North) and New Munster (in the south)? Or can we think of other names?

The South used to be the wealthier part of the country, it's where a lot of the farming and gold came from. That changed over time however and the North Island became the commercial hub for the country.
 
Seeing as the main reason for moving the capital to Wellington was to ensure that it wasn't in either of the two main provincial centres, Auckland & Christchurch, keeping it in Auckland could easily be used to create enough anti-northern sentiment for separate colonies. Especially with ongoing uncertainty over the wars with the North Island Maori.

Even today there is a strong dislike towards Auckland (aka JAFA-land) and most of us weren't happy to learn that the government has plans to relocate there (temporarily, yeah right...) if an earthquake strikes Wellington.

Long term would still see a North with a far greater population and economic muscle. Both, as separate colonies, could actually join the Australian Federation, although New South Wales's insistence on all imports & exports, to & from NZ, having to pass through Sydney first would probably still kill the idea.
 
The South Island state may be a bit richer than otl. A local state government could well spend more local resources on local development. Better roads, rail, ports and more immigrants rather than subsidising early development of the North. That being said, the investors of the South would likely still go northwards for better investment return.
 
Both, as separate colonies, could actually join the Australian Federation, although New South Wales's insistence on all imports & exports, to & from NZ, having to pass through Sydney first would probably still kill the idea.

Was that a real suggestion during the run up to Australian Federation? I've never heard of it before and I can't see why the other Australian colonies would have supported the suggestion.
 
Last edited:
Originally it was planned that NewZealand would be a state of Australia. Even though it was eventually knocked back by NZ, the Australian constitution still allows for NZ to join whenever they want.
 
Top